Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 26 to 32 of 32
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by PNWbrit View Post
    You're not really thinking this through completely are you?
    That may be the case. But if you think of standing on a small boat with a convex hull (something I have done a lot) and you want to exert forces on either side of the boat, the width of your feet hugely impacts your leverage and control. Whereas in a flat bottom boat with with sharp chines there are only three positions of the boat flat or on either chine. To me convex bases vs. flat bases represent the same thing.

    But I would love to know how I am not thinking it through

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    33,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Leisg View Post
    That may be the case. But if you think of standing on a small boat with a convex hull (something I have done a lot) and you want to exert forces on either side of the boat, the width of your feet hugely impacts your leverage and control. Whereas in a flat bottom boat with with sharp chines there are only three positions of the boat flat or on either chine. To me convex bases vs. flat bases represent the same thing.

    But I would love to know how I am not thinking it through
    The moment of force with wide binding mount compared with narrow is the same and its acts along/around center line of ski since both systems are essentially equally rigid. - The same degree of side to side angle imparted by boot on ski regardless

    Wider may provide stronger mount - except as pointed out by M regarding construction of ski core
    Quote Originally Posted by Downbound Train View Post
    And there will come a day when our ancestors look back...........

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    6,748
    Quote Originally Posted by Leisg View Post
    That may be the case. But if you think of standing on a small boat with a convex hull (something I have done a lot) and you want to exert forces on either side of the boat, the width of your feet hugely impacts your leverage and control. Whereas in a flat bottom boat with with sharp chines there are only three positions of the boat flat or on either chine. To me convex bases vs. flat bases represent the same thing.

    But I would love to know how I am not thinking it through
    All your comparison proves is that convex hull boats are easier to roll on the water than flat bottom boats, and has nothing to do with the connection between your feet and the bottom of the boat. (Which is exactly the same for both boats given an equal spread between your feet.)

    Quote Originally Posted by PNWbrit View Post
    The moment of force with wide binding mount compared with narrow is the same and its acts along/around center line of ski since both systems are essentially equally rigid. - The same degree of side to side angle imparted by boot on ski regardless

    Wider may provide stronger mount - except as pointed out by M regarding construction of ski core
    Well said, though a wider footprint could only result in a "stronger" (ignoring ski construction) mount during lateral loading due to less leverage on the screws. Pure vertical pullout strength would remain the same as a narrow pattern (again assuming ski construction is the same regardless of width).

    Those who echo the marketing hype of wider binding footprints somehow "increasing ski responsiveness" crack me up.

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    59
    Wasn't trying to replicate the hype but just trying to think through it... but from reading PNWBrits response and doing some reading on the internet I understand things better.

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    6,748
    ^^^ Cool.

    If a ski was 12" wide and made of soft rubber, there would be a benefit to a wider binding footprint, because it would help transfer more power to the edge and increase the underfoot rigidity of the floppy ski.

    But for all practical purposes, skis flex very little across their width, and don't really benefit from the addition of a stiff, wider binding baseplate. Maybe a World Cup dh/sg/gs racer could harness that 0.000001% improvement, but if there was any improvement to be gained I'm sure World Cup race skis would all have bindings that cover the full width of the topsheet.

  6. #31
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Juxtaposition
    Posts
    5,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Leisg View Post
    Wasn't trying to replicate the hype but just trying to think through it... but from reading PNWBrits response and doing some reading on the internet I understand things better.
    Dude, this kind of post is NOT the spirit of TGR.

    Life is not lift served.

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    52
    Can someone elaborate on the aftermarket baseplates that are available? What is the advantage of using a baseplate? Is weight the only disadvantage? I'm thinking of mounting plums on some Salomon Rocker2 115s, but am unsure of the mounting construction of the ski. I was thinking about going with the "J'envoi du gros" but mostly because I like the idea of the stopper to reduce impact on the pins. I broke a pin last year on my 2010 model guides.
    Last edited by 2wheeler; 09-17-2012 at 02:06 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •